Fairness Doctrine.

I may be completely wrong about this, but with an Obama win in the Whitehouse, and the democrats being able to push anything they want through, one can speculate that the fairness doctrine might return.

If I'm not mistaken, the fairness doctrine essentially required all broadcast stations to provide 'both' points of view (left and right).

The threat to radio shows is that I'd assume they would be forced to have two hosts or split the show into two shows one half talks about the left, the other half talks about the right, listeners would get fed up, and the shows ratings would drop, less listeners = less money = more chance of the show getting canned.

If I’m not mistaken, I don't see how the fairness doctrine could be applied to something people have to pay for. (Sat Radio), unless they try to go really far with it.

So what’s this mean?

Imagine for a moment that the fairness doctrine returns, all radio shows that are highly critical of the left or right now have to show both sides, people who used to listen to these shows get fed up with hearing stuff they are not interested in, listeners drop, advertising dries up.

They are left with two options:

1. Cancel the show and retire.
2. Run the show the way they used to run it on unrestricted Satellite Radio.
3. Run the show as an online podcast (listeners have to learn how to do something)

What if all of these shows move to Satellite radio? These shows have a LOT of listeners, it would be Howard stern on crack as far as new subscriptions.

Howard stern went to Satellite radio cause I'm assuming he was sick of dealing with FCC indecency rules. With the possible return of fairness doctrine, I can see shows trying to flock to Satellite Radio to avoid FCC regulation similar to how shows have come to Sirius to avoid indecency rules.

If sat radio picks up ANY of the popular radio hosts (left or right), I can imagine flocks of people subbing up to hear their favorite host without being forced to listen to crap they do not want to hear.

On October 22, 2008, Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, told a conservative talk radio host in Albuquerque, NM that "I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view," and "All I’m saying is that for many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since."[13]

On June 24, 2008, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (who represents California's 8th congressional district) told reporters that her fellow Democratic Representatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, adding “the interest in my caucus is the reverse.” When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, “Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’”, the Speaker replied "Yes."[14]

A year earlier, in June 2007, Senator Richard Durbin (Democrat of Illinois) said, "It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,”[15] an opinion shared by his Democratic colleague, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.[16]